Follow-up Comment #4, task #13451 (project administration):
Re: #1, License queries
[Oops, I originally sent this as an email reply... now using the Web
interface. The reply was sent about 5 hours ago, and is reproduced here
verbatim... including the email-versus-web-interface query. -- behoffski]
G'day,
Thanks for the quick reply.
Taking on an industrial-strength program such as GNU Grep, and in
an area such as the performance of string searching, has been a
daunting task, and much of my effort has been in trying to make my
code worthy of comparison in the nominated areas, without having
too many differences in other areas that could affect the relative
performance profiles. This pressure, plus my relative
inexperience in managing Internet-hosted software, has led to the
slip-ups you've seen.
Paul Eggert and Jim Meyering, two of the principal maintainers of
GNU Grep, are aware of (some of) my efforts, and Paul, in
particular, was the person who suggested that I try hosting this
project on Savannah. If this project requires some evaluation,
perhaps they would be appropriate reviewers.
So, to address your concerns, plus a couple of things that I've
thought of, since submitting:
1. The selection of "GPLv2 or later" was a mistake on my part.
On my browser, I scanned the drop-down list of license options,
and did not see GPLv3 listed... but upon re-reading the form
just now, I see that the list has a scrollbar, and this item is
indeed listed. I understood that forking the GPLv3+ GNU Grep
would result in a project that required the GPLv3+ license,
and I believe that the files with explicit GPL marking, plus
the license file, reflect this.
For a project that has mixed GPLv3+ and MIT files, there isn't
a drop-down menu item that explicitly names this combination;
2. I think the "GNU All permissive license" is sufficient for the
small files;
3. The project name perhaps should include "String Search" in its
long title; the current title is possibly a little cryptic;
4. In the "Other dependencies" project list, there are two
omissions:
4a. Gnulib is explicitly fetched, and packages imported, as
part of the bootstrap process; and
4b. The bootstrap script also explicitly uses Autotools,
specifically "autoreconf" and "automake --add-missing".
I'm happy to resubmit the tarball with fixes; I would like your
guidance in the most appropriate way to do this -- for example:
- Should I use a Web interface?
- The revised tarball (with the additional small license
annotations) could be called "hstbm-0.10-r1.tar.gz"; is
this acceptable?
cheers,
behoffski
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?13451>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
